Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. quashed the order passed by the Delhi Development Authority and Ministry of Urban Development and held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would not be applicable to the land which was declared urbanized and had lost its agricultural character. The Court further held that the owner of the urbanized land could not be forced to use the land for agricultural purposes when the land in question had ceased to be agricultural in nature.
The present matter was related to the petitioner’s land in Village Chattarpur, New Delhi, and the proceedings regarding this land were instituted under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act) in 2003. In 2015, an order in nature of conditional decree was passed by the Revenue Assistant/SDM, Revenue Department and against this order, the present writ petition was filed.
The Village Chattarpur was shown as an urban extension area as per the Master Plan of Delhi-2021 (MPD-2021). The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under Section 11 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (DDA Act) issued a notification which gave the land use of the urban extension area, and which included Zone J of Chattarpur area. Thus, after this notification, Village Chattarpur had been shown as an urban extension area, wherein residential activities had been allowed. The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India issues a notification in 2013, wherein, Village Chattarpur was notified as a Low-Density Residential Area (LDRA).
In 2019, a notification was issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, wherein, all the villages mentioned in the notification which were part of the rural areas, ceased to be rural areas and was deemed to be urban areas. Village Chattarpur was also included in this notification.
The issue for consideration in the present matter was “Whether once the land was urbanized then the proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act) would become non-est and non-maintainable”?
The Court opined that “where proceedings had been initiated under the DLR Act and a conditional order had been made and notification for urbanization of the land was issued prior to the issuance of the final order, then the said proceedings under the DLR Act would not lie. Once notification was issued under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Delhi Development Act, 1957, then the land in question becomes urbanized. Thus, any proceedings under the DLR Act, 1954 as such would not be maintainable as Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would cease to have any effect or applicability with respect to such lands”.
The Court relied on Sanvik Engineers India (P) Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 360, wherein it was held that once the land had been urbanized, then any proceedings under the DLR Act, 1954 would not be maintainable. The Court noted that in the present case, Village Chattarpur had already been declared as urbanized by virtue of notification under DDA Act and it was also declared as Low-Density Residential Area (LDRA) as per the notification issued by the Government of India. Thus, use of the land was now residential and therefore, once notification of the government and its authorities as well as the Master Plan itself declared use of the land as residential, then the owner of the land could not be forced to use the land for agricultural purposes when the land in question had ceased to be agricultural in nature.
In 2015, this Court in Mahajan Industries (P) Ltd. v. Gaon Sabha Chattarpur, W.P. (C) 10270 of 2015, had set aside the order passed by the Revenue Assistant/SDM. However, the matter was remanded back to this Court for hearing on merits.
The Court held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would not be applicable to the land of the Village Chattarpur, as the said land had lost its character as agricultural land and was now an urbanized land in view of the notifications of the DDA and Ministry of Urban Development; and the declaration of the Zonal Development Plan under the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021. Therefore, the Court quashed the order/conditional decree passed by the Revenue Assistant/SDM and Government of India.
[Mahajan Industries (P) Ltd. v. Gaon Sabha Chattarpur, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 23, decided on 4-1-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Advocate Smita Maan
For the Respondent: SC (Civil) Santosh Kr. Tripathi
Advocate Arun Panwar
Advocate Mehak Rankawat
*Simranjeet Kaur, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
